** The Murder of Julia Wallace **

[caz]

It’s certainly true that we can sometimes hear something unquestioningly and then when we think back it’s “hold on, how come….?” Old William certainly seems singularly lacking in curiosity about this odd request. He even told Caird that he hadn’t made his mind up to go and yet next day he’s unthinking persistence personified as he spends an hour arsing around and ignoring locals who keep telling him that the address doesn’t exist.

It’s an issue that we can never get the bottom of Caz but I still wonder if William was caught a little unawares by Gladys Harley bringing Beattie to the phone? Perhaps he was expecting more of “I’m sorry but Mr. Wallace isn’t here. Can I pass on a message” kind of thing from her? Maybe William wouldn’t have fancied trying to fool Beattie but if, expecting to hear Gladys he hears Beattie responding, then on the spot he had to go into fake voice mode. Then again, as I’m typing this I’m thinking, didn’t one of the operators say that the caller had a gruff voice? I’ll check but if that was the case (and I think it was) then it implies that he was prepared from the off for using a disguised voice. There was certainly a risk of someone knowing that there was no MGE. And might the café have had a directory? I don’t know.

He would have known that Beattie didn’t have his address but a risk would have been Beattie saying “his friend Mr. Caird is here. He’s bound to know.” He could hardly have said “don’t bother.” Even though I’m convinced that William was guilty there are still so many questions that we’d like an answer for but I think that we’re doomed to ignorance on most of not all of them. A bit of speculation never hurt anyone Caz.

Hi Herlock,

The risk of someone at the club knowing that MGE didn't exist would have been greater for anyone needing Wallace to buy into it and be out of the house on the Tuesday evening.

Wallace, on the other hand, could easily have bluffed his way through this minor setback by suggesting the caller may have spoken indistinctly or been misheard, or a mistake made in taking the message down. He would give it a go anyway, unless "Qualtrough" called back [which wasn't going to happen], and try the similarly named streets. Had anyone insisted that there was no such address, he could have adapted his famous enquiries on the journey accordingly: "Look, I've been given this address but I'm told it must be a mistake. Could you suggest where I could try instead?"

Wallace had a tongue in his head, and I'm pretty sure he knew how to use it to get himself out of tricky situations.

Love,

Caz
X

[Dupin]

I was interested in whether or not Qualtrough (the man who phoned) used a false voice, and the circumstances of the call. There are two statements from the operators on the Wallace site. It was agreed he was male and one said with a deep voice. Both agreed it was an ordinary voice, at least to them, and were at pains to remark it was certainly not gruff (cf Beattie below). Gladys Harley, the club waitress who took the call initially, said " The man who telephoned had a deep voice and spoke very quickly.., there was nothing strange about it. It seemed like the voice of an elderly gentleman." However, Mr Beattie who ran the chess club and took the call next said "I went to the ‘phone and a man’s voice – a gruffish voice but of a man sure of himself, a strong voiced man ..."

It seems Qualtrough spoke with an ordinary voice at least to the operators, and it sounds like he had a telephone manner, saying Café proper-like and describing this caff as a Restaurant. I don't know why the operator thought he was used to telephones. As it happened he was using a new type of box with two buttons, and had pressed B instead of A when the call was connected, but said he had pressed A.

It was because he was in the end put through for nothing that a record was made. Was this the intent? Surely nobody would be so petty about tuppence. But why would a guilty Wallace want a record of this important message to come from a phonebox within easy walking distance from his home? Although it was probably a ten minute walk, being outside the Cabbage Hall picturedrome.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock,

The risk of someone at the club knowing that MGE didn't exist would have been greater for anyone needing Wallace to buy into it and be out of the house on the Tuesday evening.

Wallace, on the other hand, could easily have bluffed his way through this minor setback by suggesting the caller may have spoken indistinctly or been misheard, or a mistake made in taking the message down. He would give it a go anyway, unless "Qualtrough" called back [which wasn't going to happen], and try the similarly named streets. Had anyone insisted that there was no such address, he could have adapted his famous enquiries on the journey accordingly: "Look, I've been given this address but I'm told it must be a mistake. Could you suggest where I could try instead?"

Wallace had a tongue in his head, and I'm pretty sure he knew how to use it to get himself out of tricky situations.

Love,

Caz
X

Hi Caz,

I just double checked on the way that the conversation in the club went a relayed by Beattie:

William: ……Where is Menlove Gardens East? Is it Menlove Avenue?

Beattie: No, Menlove Gardens East.

William: Where is Menlove Gardens East?

Beattie: Wait a moment, I’ll see whether Deyes (another member of the chess club who lived in that district) knows.


Menlove Avenue is in the Mossley Hill area which is where Beattie lived (Deyes too). Beattie knew of Menlove Gardens West only and Deyes knew of West, North and South but not East. So neither knew the road but not that it didn’t exist.

When William copied the address, that Beattie had written on an envelope, into his diary he wrote EAST in capitals. There appeared to have been a short discussion on prospective routes as William was confident that he knew the general area and would have no trouble finding the address. Even his opponent Mr. McCartney asked for William’s address so that he might make suggestions as to routes.

I don’t think that we can read anything much into this part of the puzzle though.

[Herlock Sholmes]

I was interested in whether or not Qualtrough (the man who phoned) used a false voice, and the circumstances of the call. There are two statements from the operators on the Wallace site. It was agreed he was male and one said with a deep voice. Both agreed it was an ordinary voice, at least to them, and were at pains to remark it was certainly not gruff (cf Beattie below). Gladys Harley, the club waitress who took the call initially, said " The man who telephoned had a deep voice and spoke very quickly.., there was nothing strange about it. It seemed like the voice of an elderly gentleman." However, Mr Beattie who ran the chess club and took the call next said "I went to the ‘phone and a man’s voice – a gruffish voice but of a man sure of himself, a strong voiced man ..."

It seems Qualtrough spoke with an ordinary voice at least to the operators, and it sounds like he had a telephone manner, saying Café proper-like and describing this caff as a Restaurant. I don't know why the operator thought he was used to telephones. As it happened he was using a new type of box with two buttons, and had pressed B instead of A when the call was connected, but said he had pressed A.

It was because he was in the end put through for nothing that a record was made. Was this the intent? Surely nobody would be so petty about tuppence. But why would a guilty Wallace want a record of this important message to come from a phonebox within easy walking distance from his home? Although it was probably a ten minute walk, being outside the Cabbage Hall picturedrome.

It’s certainly interesting that the person who heard the ‘gruff’ voice was the only person that actually knew William’s voice. Even Gladys Harley at the club wouldn’t have recognised it.

I don’t think that William deliberately misused the phone but we do know that there was no light inside the phone so perhaps it was an error caused by the lack of light?

[etenguy]

I don’t think that William deliberately misused the phone but we do know that there was no light inside the phone so perhaps it was an error caused by the lack of light?

Hi Herlock

I think you are right. If William made the call, it was in his best interests for it not to be known it was his local call box - so a mistake, perhaps due to poor light as you suggest and no knowledge that it would have been recorded.

The same if it was Mr Q who used that box to call when he was sure Wallace had left and was on the way to his chess club.

There is a third option - it may have been a deliberate ploy to ensure the call was recorded as coming from that telephone box if Mr Q was trying to put Wallace in the frame. I'm not sure there is an established theory that would have someone framing Wallace - but a possibility, albeit unlikely.

[Herlock Sholmes]

Hi Herlock

I think you are right. If William made the call, it was in his best interests for it not to be known it was his local call box - so a mistake, perhaps due to poor light as you suggest and no knowledge that it would have been recorded.

The same if it was Mr Q who used that box to call when he was sure Wallace had left and was on the way to his chess club.

There is a third option - it may have been a deliberate ploy to ensure the call was recorded as coming from that telephone box if Mr Q was trying to put Wallace in the frame. I'm not sure there is an established theory that would have someone framing Wallace - but a possibility, albeit unlikely.

Hi Eten,

That one has been mentioned somewhere I think but one of the problems for someone trying to set up Williams is that if he hadn’t seen William leave the house and walk in the direction of the phone box he was relying on luck that no one had seen him turn left instead of right into Breck Road. Or that someone hadn’t seen him get on a tram at the Belmont Road stop.

The reason for the problem that the caller had will never be fully explained. People have looked into the operation and issues with that kind of phone with no conclusion. I suspect that it was some kind of tech issue.

[cobalt]

The modern citizen assumes that all phone calls are logged digitally but this would not have been the case in 1931. As late as the 1990s, police dramas often featured some detective investigating a blackmailer to plead 'Keep him on the line so we have time to trace the call.'
So I doubt there was any ulterior motive to the difficulty encountered by Mr. Qualtrough in the public phone box.